Few subjects bring up more consternation among the general public than the concept of an insanity defense within a court of law. As a civilized society, the original intent of such a legal defense was to recognize the mental handicap of a specific defendant in not being able to decipher the distinction between right and wrong when acussed of a crime. Such defenses were initially given credible consideration among the general public in an age where the vast majority of prosecutions utilizing such a defense were not necessarily publicized.
Over time and perceived injustices allowing criminal defendants to be absolved of criminal punishment due to the insanity defense, the public’s willingness to embrace the notion that a Defendant should avoid culpability for criminal conduct has shifted dramatically over time.
It has been said that the concept of individual responsibility is too often turned on its head by slick defense lawyers who have crafted such a defense erroneously for the benefit of a client and not the best interests of society as a whole. As the media age has intensified and more and more citizens have been exposed to high profile cases, media reporting is all too quick to inflame the passions of the public as to the perceived injustice of a misapplied insanity defense in select cases.
This concern reached a fever pitch following the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. The shooter in question, John Hinkley, was to be determined mentally ill with an outcome leading to medical rehabilitation and not the imprisonment many who admired the president had longed for. For many, the harsh weight of criminal punishment and not a perceived catered existence within a mental hospital are what many patriotic citizens believed they had a right to expect for one who has shot the president.
For others, the concept of the insanity defense is often illogical on its face in explaining the actions of those who commit heinous crimes. For many there should be no distinction among those who commit unspeakable acts no matter their ability to appreciate right from wrong. Further, many analysts believe it counter to the notion of equal justice for one state to create laws that more broadly allow for such an explanation of criminal conduct where others have essentially shut off application of an insanity defense in its entirety.
The state of Indiana has not been immune to this controversy regarding the insanity defense. Much like other state legislatures, Indiana attempted to curb the perception of abuse by creating criminal statutes that allow for the concept of a Defendant’s diminished mental well being to be recognized, yet not an absolution for criminal conduct.
“Guilty But Mentally” laws were the device of elected legislators who wished to recognize the role a diminished mental capacity may have had in the commission of a crime. However, the true impetus for the enactment of such laws were to undermine the potential for an insanity defense to preclude criminal accountability in favor of successful mental health treatment that may one day return a Defendant back into society at large.
The guilty but mentally ill “solution” has essentially eradicated much of the insanity defense’s application both within Indiana as well as other states that have adapted similiar laws. In sum, a jury’s finding that a Defendant is guilty but mentally ill sends the individual initially to a pscychiatric facility to treat any mental condition rendering the person unable to function within society. However, unlike a successful insanity defense where one could conceivably be released back into the general populace when and if mentally rehabilitated, such is not the case for a guilty but mentally ill determination.
Under the present guilty but mentally ill sentencing scheme within Indiana, if in the medical opinion of court appointed doctors a Defendant is deemed to be mentally reformed, the individual would be transferred not back to society but to a designated penal facility to serve the orginally imposed criminal sentence imposed by the jury verdict. Such a legal defense time and again has appeared to be eminently reasonable to most all juries within the state of Indiana and meets with most citizens moral view of justice. As a result, it is simply no longer a credible agenda to attack the continued existence of the insanity defense as one that serves to compromise the integrity of the criminal process.
To those who continue to seek the eradication of the insanity defense I would submit the following: In attempting to fashion the most just and appropriate outcomes for those accused of crime, it is incumbent upon legislators to broaden and not constrain the admissibility of all legal options based upon the varied circumstances of those who face legal judgment.
Let us endeavor as a society to err on the side of providing all legal avenues possible that will most ably recognize the role diminished mental capacity may play within select cases.